v: 


•iM^ 


».ai«'«a'»' 


i  '\l 


•^■-  tf  CI 


■.*:i^  tJr'- 


4^ 


T.F.  Odenweller 


The  Inerrancy 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures 


"i^ 


^ 


^■'.^  T.rtr       -.i""**!* 


BS480 
.0^23 


M.   \ 


IKi 


V 


ij,  fl 


0»'  Of  ™«^^ 

BS480 

.023 


lis  ^80  Warticld  L 


pOFPf 


:/. 


"^  JAN    4 


%M\ 


VII. 
THE  INERRANCY   OF  THE   HOLY   SCRIPTURES. 

If  the  Holy  Scriptures  contradict  themselves;  if  they  do  not 
accord  with  authentic  history,  or  if  they  are  inconsistent  with  right 
theories  of  the  physical,  the  social,  the  intellectual,  the  moral  or  the 
religious  world,  they  are  undoubtedly  fallible.  But  if  these  writings 
are  in  harmony  with  all  that  is  surest  and  highest,  within  the  reach 
of  human  thought,  we  must  admit  that  they  are  as  free  from  error 
as  divine  thought  can  be  in  human  language. 

That  there  are  errors  in  the  most  accurate  translations  of  the 
Bible,  and  a  few  in  the  most  reliable  of  the  ancient  manuscripts,  is 
not  seriously  questioned.  It  is  admitted  by  those  who  hold  the 
theory  of  verbal  inspiration  in  its  most  rigid  form.  But  they  main- 
tain that  these  discrepancies  were  not  in  the  original  autographs, 
and  that  they  are  too  few  and  insignificant  to  invalidate  the  doctrine 
of  plenary  inspiration.  With  such  errors  this  paper  has  little  or 
nothing  to  do.  Our  topic  will  be  considered,  not  with  reference  to 
the  textual,  but  the  Higher  Criticism. 

Do  the  Holy  Writings  contradict  themselves?  Do  they  agree  with 
contemporary  profane  history?  Do  they  teach  as  science  what  is 
now  known  to  be  false?  Is  their  moral  philosophy  immoral?  Is 
their  theology  derived  from  that  of  a  more  ancient  literature?  Is  it 
nothing  more  than  the  highest  form  of  mythology?  These  and  a 
multitude  of  similar  questions  arise  before  him  who  would  study  the 
Bible  in  the  light  of  modern  criticism.  To  answer  these  questions 
one  by  one  would  be  useless.  It  would  be  like  clipping  the  branches 
of  a  foul  shrub.  Other  branches  would  at  once  arise.  Our  tradi- 
tional theory  about  the  Bible  is  the  shrub.  Let  it  be  plucked  up  by 
the  roots;  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves  about  the  branches. 

In  our  day  the  Bible  is  passing  through  a  new  trial.  Even  some 
of  its  friends,  being  otherwise  unable  to  separate  the  gold  of  inspira- 
tion from  the  dross  of  tradition,  are  casting  all  their  religious  teach- 
ings, their  creeds,  confessions,  symbols  of  every  kind,  as  well  as  the 
Bible,  into  the  furnace  of  purification.  This  is  well.  Put  on  more 
fuel.     Speed  the  blowers.     Let  the  fires  be  made  so  hot  that  all  will 

be  consumed  but  the  gold  of  divine  truth. 
5 


66  The  Neio   Chrisfiau  Quarterly. 

The  euemj  of  the  Word  of  God  may  be  expected  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  .situation.  He  hates  with  an  intense  hatred  the  Book 
that  has  so  persistently  sought  to  master  him.  Now  he  thinks  his 
foe  is  down  in  the  dust,  in  the  common  dust,  soon  to  be  but  dust 
under  the  flying  wheels  of  Evolution's  all-conquering  chariot.  The 
royal  engineer  of  skepticism  is  planning  to  overturn  the  City  of  God. 
He  has  found  in  the  Higher  Criticism  a  ttov  ottw  (pou  stoo).  This  he 
will  use  as  a  fulcrum.  He  will  put  the  short  arm  of  the  lever  under 
the  Holy  City,  and  the  long  arm,  the  infinitely  long,  long  arm  of  the 
lever — conceit  and  prejudice — he  will  load  with  the  weight  of  his  infin- 
itesimal logic.  If  that  lever  were  to  lose  its  bite — what  a  fall! 
But  if  not,  what  then?  It  can  be  nothing  serious,  for  "  the  length 
and  the  breadth  and  the  height  of  the  city  are  equal,"  and,  like  any 
other  cube,  when  it  is  thrown  down  it  stands  up.  We  need  not  fear 
the  result  of  this  experiment.  Who  can  tell  how  great  may  be  the 
advantage  of  our  seeing  the  other  side  of  this  cube,  and  the  ver^'^ 
foundation  on  which  so  mighty  a  structure  has  rested  for  ages? 

A  hundred  years  ago,  Paine,  in  the  conclusion  of  the  first  part  of 
his  "Age  of  Reason,"  said:  "I  have  gone  through  the  Bible  as  a 
man  would  go  through  a  wood  with  aa  ax  on  his  shoulder  and  fell 
trees.  Here  they  lie;  and  the  priests,  if  they  can,  may  replant  them. 
They  may,  perhaps,  stick  them  into  the  ground,  but  they  will  never 
grow  again."  Have  subsequent  events  justified  his  boast  and  ful- 
filled his  prophecy?  Were  the  books  of  the  Bible  utterly  destroyed 
by  Thomas  Paine?  No;  in  spite  of  his  hatchet,  the  trees  are  still 
standing.  Perhaps  he  only  cut  away  some  of  the  undergrowth  and 
lopped  off  some  of  the  dead  limbs.  Certain  it  is  that  the  trees  are 
still  alive.     They  bear  more  fruit  now  than  ever  before. 

A  little  more  than  a  generation  since  arose  the  school  of  the  lower 
or  textual  criticism.  Up  to  that  time  the  old  manuscripts  and 
ancient  versions  had  not  received  such  attention  as  the  case 
demanded.  As  in  every  enterprise  of  this  kind.  Christians  led  the 
way.  The  work  was  scarcely  suggested,  when  there  was  heard  a 
deafening  blast  from  the  devil's  trumpet,  and  all  his  hosts  were 
ready  for  action,  or,  rather,  for  talking.  They  said,  "The  manu- 
scripts vary;  which  is  right?"  Also,  "The  most  ancient  of  them  is 
the  result  of  many  recensions  by  uninspired,  fallible  men;  how  can 
we  know  that  even  it  is  correct?"  It  was  claimed  that  none 
knew,  or  could  know,  with  any  reasonable  degree  of  accuracy,  what 
were  the  contents  of  these  books  in  their  original  form.  But  our 
Christian  scholars  patiently  performed  their  task.  They  studied  all 
the  versions  of  the  Bible,  ancient  and  modern.     Every  manuscript 


'The  Inerrancy  of  tJie  Holy  Scrijyfures.  67 

was  carefully  cxaininod.  Every  library  was  ransacked.  Neither 
paius  nor  money  was  spared,  that  the  question  might  be  settled  at 
once  and  forever.  The  result  is  abundantly  satisfactory.  We  have 
a  more  intelligent  faith  than  before.  The  gold  has  come  from  the 
furnace  of  textual  criticism  without  the  smell  of  fire,  but  with  a 
purity  and  lustre  surpassing  all  expectation. 

But  now  the  Higher  Criticism  confronts  us.  Its  name  may  seem 
pretentious.  It  is  not.  It  is  rather  modest.  The  superlative, 
rather  than  the  comparative,  should  be  used.  It  is  the  highest  criti- 
cism. In  the  hands  of  some  it  may  be  too  high,  just  as  any  criticism 
may  become  hyper-criticism.  It  is  not  a  voracious  monster  of 
hideous  shape  and  wondrous  strength,  that  may  be  conjured  up  at 
any  time  by  the  enemies  of  truth  and  sent  to  ravage  the  fields  of 
Zion  and  to  devour  the  fairest.  It  consists  in  the  study  of  the  Bible 
^s  literature.  It  is,  therefore,  literary  criticism.  It  differs  from 
textual  criticism  as  rhetoric  differs  from  chirography.  Only  those 
who  love  the  truth  can  apprehend  its  principles.  One  who  hates 
the  Scriptures  cannot  apply  the  method  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  for 
its  method  differs  from  that  of  Mr.  Paine  as  that  of  Blackstone 
differs  from  the  method  of  the  unscrupulous,  Machiavelian  advocate 
at  the  bar. 

The  Higher  Criticism  has  given  rise  to  the  question  of  the  errancy 
or  inerrancy  of  the  Scriptures  as  it  has  been  considered  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  last  few  years.  The  discussion  has  not  been  satisfac- 
tory in  every  way.  The  disputants  have  been  hampered.  Their 
position  compels  them  to  hold  that  the  Bible  is  inerrant  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  "Confession  of  Faith"  declares  it.  They  must  also 
contend  that  the  "Confession"  is  inerrant,  for  is  not  every  material 
statement  conclusively  proven  by  the  Scriptures?  These  soldiers 
have  carried  too  much  luggage  into  the  battle.  But  Bellum  enlisted 
for  the  Avar.  His  friends  thought  the  dear  boy  should  have  the  com- 
forts of  the  old  home  in  the  camp,  and  on  the  weary  march.  His 
father  gave  him  this;  his  mother  that;  his  sister,  another  thing; 
and,  likewise,  grandfather,  grandmother,  and  aunt,  and  uncle. 
When  the  poor  fellow  started  for  the  war,  he  looked  like  a  walking 
wardrobe,  kitchen,  bedroom,  and  variety  store  combined.  When 
the  veteran  returned  from  the  wars  there  was  less  on  his  back  but 
more  in  his  head.  In  the  theologic  wars  of  this  age  we  must  fight 
without  imjyedimenta . 

From  the  time  of  Jesus  till  now  the  Word  of  God  has  been  made 
of  non-effect  through  tradition.  This  was  not  intended.  It  was 
intended  to  make  the  Word  more  effective,  to  add  brilliancy  to  the 


68  The   New    Christian    Quarterly. 

sunbeam,  and  strength  and  beauty  to  the  Damascus  bhide.  Even 
to-day  theological  light-ljearers  parade  the  streets  at  noonday,  and 
lift  aloft  the  torches  of  tradition,  and  cry  to  one  and  all,  "See  the 
sun,  the  mighty  and  glorious  sun,  who  bathes  the  earth  with  radi- 
ance, and  pay  us  and  praise  us  for  holding  the  lights  that  you  may 
see!" 

The  Bible  is  the  citadel  of  the  city  of  God.  About  it  on  every 
side  have  been  constructed  moats  and  ditches,  walls  and  breast- 
works, redoubts  and  castles — every  kind  of  defense  known  to  theo- 
logical warfare.  Gen.  Briggs  occupies  a  strong,  beautiful  castle 
near  the  citadel.  His  fellow-soldiers  are  mighty  men,  descended 
from  the  giants  of  old,  men  of  renown.  This  castle  was  violently 
shaken  some  years  since,  and  some  great  stones  were  displaced. 
But  Gen.  Briggs  thinks  he  has  seen  the  walls  rent  from  turret  to 
foundation  stone.  The  archers  have  hit  him,  and  he  is  sore 
wounded.  His  fellow-soldiers  would  comfort  him.  They  affirm 
that  the  castle,  like  the  citadel,  is  impregnable,  and  that  it  can  be  as 
easily  defended  now  as  in  ages  past.  But  the  wounded  man  feels 
that  the  walls  have  already  failed,  and  in  his  perplexity  he  seems  to 
doubt  whether  there  is  for  us  anywhere  an  impregnable  fortress. 
To  one  tossed  on  the  turbulent  sea,  mountain,  sun  and  star  seem  to 
be  unstable. 

Our  traditions  and  a  traditional  interpretation  of  the  Word  of 
God  are  accountable  for  our  present  unrest.  When  the  Moses  and 
Aaron  of  the  great  Reformation  led  the»  people  of  God  out  of  the 
bondage  of  Papal  tradition,  they  came  to  a  great  and  terrible  wil- 
derness. Then  the  people  cried,  "Wherefore  have  you  brought  us 
into  the  wilderness  to  die?  In  the  service  of  Eome  we  had  bread 
enough,  the  infallible  bread  of  tradition."  Then  the  Bible  was 
offered  as  the  infallible  bread.  Highly  seasoned  with  tradition,  it 
was  supposed  to  supply  every  need,  or  fancied  need,  for  which  secu- 
lar, ecclesiastical,  or  philosophical  Rome  had  attempted  to  provide. 
The  Bible  was  thought  to  be  a  standard  treatise  on  astronomy,  civil 
government,  and  every  other  science  then  known,  or  ever  to  be  dis- 
covered. 

It  has  been  held  that  the  Bible  is  a  literary  ideal;  that  its  diction 
is  the  purest,  its  syntax  the  most  exact,  and  its  turns  of  expression 
the  most  striking,  and  its  imagery  the  most  beautiful  and  graphic, 
that  language  has  ever  known.  Why  should  it  not  be?  Cannot  the 
Spirit  of  God  speak  and  write  as  well  as  man?  Cannot  the  inspired 
Mark  wrilo  as  well  as  the  uninspired  Xenophon?     Cannot  Paul,  the 


The  Inerrancy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  69 

inspired  orator,  surpass  Demosthenes,  who  had  no  resource  above 
the  human? 

No  (h:)ubt  the  Lord  coukl  have  caused  every  Biblical  orator  to 
speak  with  surpassing  eloquence,  and  every  sacred  poet,  with  a 
divine  afflatus,  "to  tower  to  the  very  stars  with  his  exalted  head." 
He  could  have  made  even  the  meanest  character  that  appears  in 
the  drama  of  Revelation  to  use  a  language  stiff  with  the  gold 
embroidery  of  Cicero  and  Homer.  If  he  had  done  so,  all  experience 
shows  that  the  Bible  would  have  failed  to  accomplish  its  purpose. 
No  book  with  power  to  move  the  hearts  and  reform  the  lives  of 
men  has  ever  been  the  ideal  of  the  literati.  Is  the  Iliad  such  an 
ideal?  Is  the  ^neid?  There  are  blemishes  in  both.  Shakespeare 
will  exercise  authority  over  all  things  human  while  time  endures. 
Are  his  characters  always  the  most  refined?  Do  they  always  behave 
as  gentlemen?  Do  they  always  speak  the  purest  English?  No. 
Even  the  fool  has  his  part  to  play  in  the  drama.  He  must  show 
himself  a  fool  in  act  and  speech.  Is  this  a  blunder  on  the  part  of 
the  "Myriad-minded?"  Let  not  an  inferior  condemn  the  method 
of  the  Bard  of  Avon.  The  Bible  is  a  drama  on  the  grandest  scale. 
God,  angels,  devils  and  men  are  the  dramatis  personce.  They  all 
speak  the  language  of  the  common  people.  Their  diction  is  that  of 
the  home,  the  field,  the  battle,  the  market-place,  the  journey,  the 
synagogue — rarely  that  of  the  study  or  the  "poet's  haunt."  This 
drama  is  of  surpassing  power.  Jehovah  did  not  err  in  composing 
such  a  drama,  for  he  intended  that  our  faith  should  not  stand  in  the 
wisdom  of  words,  but  in  the  power  of  God. 

The  biography  of  the  Scriptures  has  been  greatly  misunderstood. 
We  have  made  our  ideal,  which  is  a  false  one,  the  standard  by  which 
to  judge  the  true.  This  ideal  is  of  the  past,  of  the  convent,  of  the 
cloister.  It  floats  in  the  atmosphere  out  of  our  reach.  The  biogra- 
pher has  tried  to  give  this  shadowy  form  a  human  body.  We  read 
of  the  boy  who  looked  like  an  angel  of  light,  lived  like  one  his  few 
years,  and  died  with  an  angelic  smile  on  his  heaven-enlightened  face. 
Our  biographer  could  not  save  him  from  death,  for  no  mortal  can 
preserve  so  delicate  a  life.  Such  a  life  lengthened  to  three-score 
years  and  ten  has  become  an  ideal.  When  we  compare  the  Bible 
characters  with  such  a  standard,  they  disai)point  us.  They  are  not 
boys,  but  men.  They  are  of  like  passioqs  with  us.  David's  biogra- 
pher was  not  permitted  to  slay  the  young  man  with  the  sword  of 
Goliath,  that  he  might  tell  a  pretty  story  of  childhood  and  youth. 
He  has  given  us  the  life  of  a  man.  He  has  recorded.  David's  hopes 
and  disappointments,  his  struggles  and  his  victories,  his  lapses  and 


70  TJie   Neio    Chri.stian    Quarterly, 

his  recoveries.  The  story  stirs  the  soul  to  its  lowest  depths.  It 
teaches  the  kindness  and  the  mercy  of  God.  It  brings  to  the  heart 
the  knowledge  of  sin,  and  shows  how  noble  it  is  to  battle  with  evil. 
This  the  story  of  the  angelic  boy  cannot  do.  The  biography  of  the 
Bible  is  not  at  fault;  but  the  hypothesis,  born  of  the  visions  of 
cloistered  monks  and  perpetuated  by  the  dreamy  impracticals  of  the 
present,  is  erroneous. 

The  theory  that  one  inspired  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is  emptied  of  all 
that  is  human  and  filled  to  the  overflow  with  all  that  is  divine, 
should  be  reconstructed — out  of  existence.  It  is  often  assumed, 
though  not  affirmed,  that  an  inspired  man  must  be  infallible  in 
private  life.  This  assumption  lurks  behind  the  question,  "How 
could  Peter,  an  inspired  man,  err  in  his  conduct,  as  Paul,  another 
inspired  man,  affirmed  that  he  did?"  Such  questions  are  absurd  in 
the  extreme.  Inspiration  does  not  take  away  free  agency  and  make 
its  subject  a  moralless  automaton. 

Moreover,  it  is  assumed,  in  spite  of  the  testimony  of  Jesus,  that 
the  prophet's  knowledge  is  as  clearly  defined  and  as  comprehensive 
as  that  of  Jehovah.  It  is  forgotten  that  the  finite  cannot  en- 
compass the  infinite.  The  mind  of  one  prophet  may  move  in  a 
very  narrow  circle.  That  of  another  in  a  large  one.  Yet,  though 
the  circle  be  as  great  as  that  swept  by  the  eagle  eye  of  an  Isaiah,  it 
must  touch  the  outskirts  of  the  unknown.  If  to  touch  this  bound- 
ary of  the  unknown  is  to  err,  then  to  be  less  than  infinity  is  an 
error. 

Many  of  the  seeming  errors  of  the  Holy  Writings  arise  from  our 
failure  to  understand  the  language  which  God  employs  in  his 
attempts  to  reveal  to  us  his  thoughts.  Here  no  reference  is  intend- 
ed to  an  ignorance  of  the  original  tongues,  but  to  the  inherent 
defectiveness  of  all  known  means  of  communication.  God  has 
chosen  to  speak  to  man  in  the  language  of  man.  That  we  may  not 
fail  to  learn  the  world-embracing  and  age-lasting  truth,  he  has  given 
us  "line  upon  line,  and  precept  upon  precept,"  and  example  upon 
example.  What  if  one  line  out  of  the  many  seems  to  us  to  be 
broken?  What  if  we  think  we  see  a  defect  in  one  precept  out  a 
great  multitude?  What  if  two  or  three  examples  out  of  a  thousand 
do  seem  to  us  inapposite  or  irrelevant?  Such  difficulties  are 
found  in  our  approach  to  all  other  knowledge.  The  sun  seems  to 
move  about  the  earth,  but  he  does  not.  He  seems  to  move  west- 
ward, but  does  not.  The  planets  sometimes  seem  to  turn  back,  but 
they  do  not.  The  astronomer  passes  these  by  until,  with  the  aid 
of  other  phenomena,   he  grasps  the  great  principles  of  his  science. 


The  Inerrancy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  71 

Then  all  seeming  irregularities  disappear.  So  God  has  demon- 
strated the  vital  truths  of  the  Christian  religion.  What  if  there  are 
details  in  his  argument  that  are  hard  to  undersatnd?  Such  diffi- 
culties cannot  be  avoided  since  the  means  of  revelation  are  partly 
human   and   therefore   partake  of  the  imperfection  of  man. 

The  Omniscient  could  have  made  a  language  based  upon  his 
knowledge.  He  could  have  given  to  every  word  a  fixed  and  definite 
signification,  and  caused  it  to  beam  with  so  bright  a  light  that  no 
other  meaning  could  lurk  in  its  shadow.  He  could  have  made  for 
this  language  laws  of  syntax  as  inexorable  as  the  rules  of  mensura- 
tion. Has  he  done  so?  Did  he  teach  this  language  to  the  prophets 
and  the  apostles?  Did  he  train  them  to  be  more  exact  in  statement 
than  the  judge  in  his  decision  or  Euclid  in  his  demonstration?  Do 
the  books,  paragraphs,  sentences,  clauses,  and  words  of  the  Bible 
fit  together  as  do  the  parts  of  a  machine-made  watch?  So 
mechanical  a  language  is  possible  with  God,  and  a  creature  who 
can  understand  and  appreciate  it  is  also  possible  with  him.  But 
it  is  not  suitable  either  to  the  mind  or  heart  of  man.  Perhaps  such 
a  theory  of  the  Scripture  language  is  not  aflirmed.  Certainly 
it  is  covertly  assumed.  Many  a  system  of  theology  is  built  upon 
it.  The  conflicts  of  faith  with  unbelief  are  usually  trials  of  this 
assumption.     The   present   disturbance  is  no  exception  to  the  rule. 

It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Bible  is  literature.  It  is 
determined  by  the  rules  of  diction,  syntax,  figure,  and  other  rules 
common  to  all  language.  Though  divine,  it  is  intensely  human. 
The  panorama  of  Revelation  is  painted  in  human  language  on  the 
canvas  of  human  history,  human  knowledge,  human  passion, 
human  conflict,  and  human  victory.  It  is  the  way  to  God.  It  is 
not  a  bridge  that  spans  the  raging  cataract.  It  is  a  road  resting 
upon  the  ground — common  earth.  It  goes  up  and  down  the  incline, 
through  the  dark  tunnel  and  over  the  level  plain,  by  the  gentle 
hillside  and  the  rocky  precipice.  It  circles  about  the  mountain,  and 
seems  to  reverse  its  course  and  even  to  cross  itself.  And  yet  this 
is  the  way  across  the  dark  continent,  and  who  travels  this  way  will 
reach  the  land  where  suns  never  set. 

If  the  Bible  is  literature  its  authors  have  the  same  liberties 
and  licenses  that  are  accorded  to  other  writers.  It  is  their  privilege 
to  be  precise  or  not,  as  it  may  seem  best  to  them.  If  one  were  to 
say  it  is  44  miles  from  this  place  to  Des  Moines,  who  would  question 
either  his  veracity  or  his  intelligence,  because  it  is  only  43  3-4  miles 
to  the  capital  of  Iowa?  We  have  so  treated  the  inspired  writers. 
We  have  looked  for  a  degree  of  accuracy  that  they  do  not  claim  and 


72  TJie   New    Christian    Quarterly. 

we  cannot  find.  The  New  Testament  authors  are  fond  of  saying, 
"It  is  fulfilled."  We  have  scrutinized  every  passage  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  order  to  prove  that  the  words  introduced  with  this 
formula  are  in  every  case  an  exact  quotation.  A  few  of  the  quota- 
tions are  not  from  the  canonical  books.  Others  are  not  accurate. 
Some  are  from  the  Septuagint,  though  that  version  is  in  many 
places  little  more  than  a  paraphrase  of  the  original  Hebrew. 
Sometimes  they  agree,  in  jot  and  tittle,  neither  with  the  Hebrew  nor 
with  the  Greek  version. 

The  evangelists  who  quote  from  the  parchment  that  was  hung 
over  the  head  of  the  Crucified  surely  do  not  mean  to  be  precise. 
And  what  if  one  of  them  does  say  that  at  twilight  it  was  dark,  and 
another  say  that  at  the  same  time  it  was  light?  May  not  both  speak 
the  truth?  "Who  knows  by  what  Avay  the  light  is  parted?"  When 
does  night  pass  into  twilight?  We  are  no  nearer  a  solution  of  the 
problem  than  was  the  patriarch  Job.  But  why  demand  of  the 
Bible  a  precision  that  would  bring  any  other  literature  into 
contempt? 

Man  sometimes  thinks  he  would  like  more  exactness  in  the  phys- 
ical world.  He  would  have  the  ocean  bounded  with  right  lines,  the 
rivers  to  divide  the  land  into  rectangles,  the  mountains  rectangular 
pyramids,  the  slopes  from  mountain  to  sea  regular  inclines,  the 
seasons  to  be  more  regular,  and  the  sunshine  and  shade  adjusted  to 
an  undeviating  law.  It  is  doubtful  if  a  respectable  variety  of  corn 
could  be  grown  in  circumstances  so  mathematical.  And  surely  man 
could  not  live  in  so  unpoetical  a  world.  In  the  first  generation  he 
would  perish  of  the  j^erpejidiciUar  monomania. 

Neither  can  the  soul  live  in  a  rectangular  spiritual  world.  The 
Bible  is  not  fashioned  after  the  principles  of  geometry.  God  has 
wisely  given  us  the  plain  of  Sharon,  the  heigths  of  Lebanon,  the 
valley  of  the  Jordan  with  its  meandering  stream,  and  the  mountains 
round  about  Jerusalem.  By  these  the  invisible,  the  ideal,  the 
eternal,   the  divine,  are  round  about  his  people  and  will  be  forever. 

In  its  allusions  to  matters  pertaining  to  natural  history  and  other 
sciences,  the  Bible  does  not  always  anticipate  the  discoveries  of 
later  times.  The  notion  that  it  should  so  anticipate,  or  that  it  does 
so,  has  given  rise  to  many  an  egregious  blunder.  In  a  sermon 
of  Dr.  Parkhurst  these  words  are  found;  "Let  those  who  would 
prove  that  there  are  no  mistakes  in  the  Bible  produce  a  cud-chewing 
coney,  and  then  we  will  consider  the  question  of  inerrancy."  He 
seems  to  think  this  one  citation  enough  to  convince  all  reasonable 
men.     Now,  it  is   true  that  the  coney   does  not  "chew  the  cud"  in 


The  Inerrancy  of  the  Holy  Scrix)tnres.  73 

the  sense'  in  which  we  use  this  phrast^.  This  difficulty,  like  many 
another,  has  arisen  from  an  attempt  to  square  the  Scripture  state- 
ment with  the  scientific  classification  of  the  present  day.  The 
ancients  did  not  go  into  the  stomachs  of  the  ox  and  the  hare  to  find  a 
basis  for  chissifying  the  ruminants.  They  observ^ed  that  these 
animals  move  their  jaws  in  the  same  way.  On  this  basis  they  right- 
ly put  the  ox  and  the  hare  and  the  coney  in  the  same  class. 

The  history  of  the  Hebrew  word  rachaviin,  and  of  the  Greek 
word  spJanch)ia,  suggests  that  the  Hebrews  and  the  Greeks  thought 
the  "quality  of  mercy"  to  be  located  in  the  lower  part  of  the  body. 
Though  these  words  literally  mean  bowels,  they  are  used  in  the 
sense  of  mercy  without  an  intimation  that  a  false  theory  may  be 
lurking  in  the  background.  Whether  the  writers  knew  its  falsity  or 
not  we  may  not  know.  They  should  not  be  expected  to  tell  us. 
The  prophets  would  have  had  an  interminable  task  before  them  if 
they  had  undertaken  to  explain  every  word  and  phrase  whose  use 
might  seem  to  suggest  error  on  the  part  of  others  or  ignorance  on 
the  part  of  themselves.  Moses  might  have  saved  himself  from  a 
certain  kind  of  criticism  if  he  had  explained  that  he  recognized  the 
difference  between  a  spirit  (ruach)  and  a  zephyr.  When  Paul 
employs  spla)icJina  to  represent  mercy,  he  might  have  added  paren- 
thetically, "Please  do  not  understand  that  I  think  that  mercy  has 
her  seat  in  the  bowels,  for  I  know  that  her  seat  is  in  the  head, 
just  where  the  people  of  1892  A.  D.  will  (hinh  they  know  it  to 
be."  However  scientific  such  a  course  would  have  been  from  a 
literary  standpoint,  it  would  have  been  unpardonable  error. 

The  Bible  should  be  held  accountable  only  for  Avhat  it  clearly 
teaches,  not  for  what  it  may  suggest.  The  suggestions  may  be  of 
the  earth.  Those  who  came  to  comfort  Job  not  only  suggested,  but 
they  actually  taught  untruth.  Yet  their  statements  are  often  quot- 
ed to-day  just  as  if  the  Spirit  of  God  approved  them.  Matthew  has 
occasion  to  quote  from  the  father  of  lies.  What  could  he  do  better 
to  show  the  character  of  the  Evil  One?  Shall  we  believe  and 
defend  the  liar  because  Matthew  quotes  him,  and  that,  too,  with 
disapproval?  In  the  Book  of  Ecclesiastes  Solomon  tells  his  exper- 
ience. He  had  tasted  both  good  and  evil.  He  balances  the  one 
against  the  other.  The  l)ook  is  something  like  a  discussion  between 
his  baser  and  his  better  nature.  We  are  not  bound  to  defend  the 
suggestions  of  his  baser  passions.  What  if  the  base  man,  the 
licentious  voluptuary,  in  his  weariness  and  disgust,  did  cry  out, 
"There  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun,"  shall  we  ransack  the  whole 
creation   to   prove   the  statement  true?      No,    Solomon  made    the 


74  Tlie  JVew   Christian  Quarterly. 

assertion  in  a  fit  of  despondency.  He  was  not  then  inspired  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  but  by  one  of  a  very  different  sort. 

Augustine  advises,  ^^ Distingue  tempora,  et  concordahit  scriptura," 
In  line  with  this  another  teaches  that,  in  our  study  of  the  Bible, 
certain  questions  should  always  be  in  mind.  These  are  a  key  to 
unlock  the  treasures  of  truth.  Briefly  stated,  the  questions  are, 
^^Quis?  quid?  idji?  quibusf  anxiliis?  cur?  quomodo?  quandof''  It 
may  not  be  of  the  utmost  importance  that  we  should  know  the  name 
of  a  writer  or  speaker,  but  it  is  of  the  greatest  moment  that  we 
distinguish  those  whom  God  approves  from  those  whom  he  disap- 
proves. What  does  he  write?  Is  it  prose  or  poetry?  parable  or 
allegory?  dialogue  or  drama?  Where  does  he  write?  In  Babylon 
or  Judea?  in  Egypt  or  Greece?  in  a  palace  or  in  prison?  With 
what  aids  does  he  write?  What  opportunities  has  he  enjoyed? 
What  language  does  he  use?  What  are  its  facilities  for  expressing 
the  author's  ideas?  Why  does  lie  write?  What  is  the  occasion? 
What  is  the  purpose  of  the  author?  When  does  he  write?  Who 
are  his  contemporaries?  Does  he  live  under  the  starlight  of  the 
Patriarchal  or  under  the  sunlight  of  the  Christian  age?  These 
questions  seem  to  belong  to  the  dialect  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  But 
they  are  much  older  than  the  modern  name  of  this  science.  The 
Higher  Criticism  is  only  a  renaissance.  Though  some  of  its  forms 
may  need  a  regeneration,  yet  the  movement  as  a  whole  is  only  a 
revival  of  a  common  sense  study  of  the  holy  Scriptures. 

This  revival  has  its  origin  in  the  perplexing  problems  of  the  pres- 
ent age.  For  many  years  it  has  been  increasingly  more  difficult  to 
hold  Christian  truth  in  the  symbols  of  the  Middle  Ages.  To-day  we 
are  revolting  from  these  symbols  and  are  beginning  to  break  the 
bonds  of  that  method  of  Scripture  interpretation  to  which 
Medioevalism  gave  l)irth.  Time  Avas  when  we  studied  the  Bible  as 
if  it  were  a  level  plain.  No  difference  Avas  made  between  the 
declaration  of  Jesus  on  the  mountain-top  and  the  wail  of  Jeremiah 
in  the  valley.  Each  text,  like  each  grain  of  sand  in  Sahara,  was 
supposed  to  be  equally  valuable.  He  who  had  carefully  studied 
the  most  texts,  very  much  as  one  might  study  each  grain  of  sand 
in  the  desert,  was  thought  to  know  most  in  things  pertaining  to 
godliness.  Suppose  one  were  to  study  a  work  of  art  after  this 
method.  Let  him  scrutinize  with  a  powerful  microscope  that  won- 
derful painting,  *'Christ  before  Pilate,"  one  eighty  thousandth  part 
at  a  time.  What  would  be  known  of  the  picture  after  the  study  of 
a  lifetime?  If  by  chance  a  pin  had  ))een  thrust  through  the  can- 
vas,   our    devoted   student   would   examine   the   hole   with   not   a 


Tlie  Inerrancy  of  tlie  Holy  Scriptures.  lb 

thought  of  its  being  a  mere  accident.  Alas!  for  him  who  follows 
such  a  method  in  the  study  of  that  masterpiece — the  Bible.  He 
cannot  realize  its  glory.  The  slight  abrasions  on  its  surface  great- 
ly perplex  him.  Not  so  with  him  who  follows  the  better  method. 
The  splendor  of  the  divine  picture  fills  his  soul.  At  a  glance  he 
recognizes  the  accidents  through  which  it  has  passed.  Yet  not  an 
idea,  not  even  a  shading  from  the  pencil  of  the  great  artist  has 
been  lost. 

To-day  we  apply  ourselves  to  the  texts  and  the  books  of  the  Bible 
with  due  attention  to  their  environment.  We  use  the  lield-glass  as 
well  as  the  miscroscope.  To  some  this  is  no  new  thing.  In  the  early 
part  of  this  century  there  arose  a  class  of  heralds  of  the  cross  new  to 
that  time.  A  new  voice  was  heard  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  a 
voice  as  free  as  the  air  of  the  New  World.  It  rang  like  a  peal  from 
the  archangel's  trumpet  from  lake  to  gulf.  It  has  ascended  the 
mountains  on  the  east  and  the  west,  and  crossed  their  summits 
into  the  regions  beyond,  and  is  going  into  all  the  world.  Though 
few  in  numbers  at  first,  these  heralds  are  now  a  great  nmltitude, 
invincible  as  the  host  of  heaven. 

Why  so  marvelous  a  result?  They  have  only  plied  the  key  that 
unlocks  the  priceless  treasure.  '"''Qids,  quid,  quibus,  auxiliis,  cur, 
quomodo,  quandoV  is  that  key.  Let  these  words  be  written  in  let- 
ters of  fire  in  the  Christian  empyrean  to  consume  the  false  and 
make  glorious  the  true.  But  what  treasure  has  been  unlocked? 
The  "First  Principles"  of  the  true  Christo-centric  theology.  We 
stand  to-day  in  the  sanctum  sanctoruinoi  the  Christian  temple.  "It 
is  the  last  time."  As  Rome  said  of  her  mightiest  enemy, 
^^  Carthago  delenda  esf,^'  so  we  have  declared  of  our  wiliest  foe, 
^^Traditio  delenda  est.''  Only  thus  may  the  truth  shine  forth, 
bright  as  the  sun,  fair  as  the  moon,  and  terrible  as  an  army  with 
banners. 

Let  none  fear  the  result  of  this  last  trial.  God  sends  the  storm 
and  the  earthquake.  To-day  a  church  built  upon  the  traditions  and 
commandments  of  men  is  mightily  shaken.  It  may  seem  to  the 
traditionalist  that  the  sun  and  the  stars  of  the  religious  heavens  are 
about  to  fall.  It  is  only  the  rocking  of  the  earthquake.  "This 
signifieth  the  removing  of  those  things  that  are  shaken,  that  those 
things  that  cannot  be  skaken  may  remain." 

T.  F.  Odenweller. 


VIII. 
POSITION  OF  BAPTISM  IN  THE  ECONOMY  OF  GRACE. 

TiJis  heading  presupposes  the  belief  that  one  is  justified  at  this 
time  in  handling  this  subject  de  novo  in -a.  Quarterly  article,  and  it 
is  proposed  to  show  that  a  man  is  saved  by  grace,  is  justified  by 
faith  Avhen  he  is  "baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins;"  and  that 
being  thus  baptized,  his  act  stands  in  thorough  contrast  both  with 
Pharisaic  legalism  and  with  Romish  sacramentalism.*  One  might 
perhaps  be  excused  for  confounding  two  things  that  are  partially 
identical  or  that  closely  resemble  each  other;  but  the  confusion  of 
two  things  that  are  not  only  different,  but  mutually  exclusive  of 
each  other  and  absolutely  irreconcilable,  is  so  utterly  incompatible 
with  the  simple  exercise  of  common  sense  that  it  admits  of  no  easy 
explanation.  There  is  nothing  in  common  between  a  penitential 
petition  for  mercy  and  a  boastful  pretension  to  merit.  "  Baptism 
for  remission,"  in  the  light  of  the  Scriptures,  is  a  prayer  for  the 
pardoning  mercy  of  -Grod.  And  we  are  not  left  to  our  intuitions  to 
discern  the  radical  contradiction  between  this  act  of  reaching  after 
grace,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  self-righteous  assertion  of  legalistic 
claims,  on  the  other.  The  ineffaceable  contrast  is  forcibly  empha- 
sized in  the  Oracles  of  God.  We  read  as  follows:  "After  that  the 
kindness  and  love  of  God  our  Savior  toward  man  appeared,  not  by 
works  which  we  did  in  righteousness,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he 
saved  us  through  the  batht  (^dia  loutrou)  of  regeneration  and  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Here  in  the  original  the  pronoun  for 
"we"  is  used  by  way  of  emphasis  to  distinguish  any  supposed 
"righteousness"  to  which  we  may  la\'  claim  as  our^s  from  God's 
method  of  saving  us,  "according  to  his  mercy,"  and  this  "through 
the  bath  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  This 
"bath  of  regeneration,"  then,  is  the  embodiment  of  God's  mercy, 
and  stands  in  contrast  with  all  self-righteousness  claimed  by  men  as 
based  on  pretensions  to  legalistic  morality  and  personal  excellence. 
And  if  by  being  "saved  through  the  bath  of  regeneration"  we  are 

*    Using  this  word  with  broader  meaning  than  Webster  to  denote  the  Romish 
doctrine  of  "sacramental  grace." 
t    The  word  in  tlie  original  is  a  substantive,  not  a  participle. 


;MPHIET  binder" 

Z    Syracuse,  N.   Y. 
;    Stockton,  Calif. 


DATE  DUE 

i«A¥«nr 

ST' 

^^a*—- *^ 

0'' 

^Jpi^^W 

T^Wj- 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

^'•^d^ 


BS480  .023 

The  inerrancy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


MT 


1    1012  00052  3045 


"jH^'' 


s-^Tj      kA'^ T-J*  •*': 


'^  .*y 


J^ 


#-^ 


